Complainant Paychex., Inc. is a Delaware corporation which provides
payroll preparation consulting services to small to medium size businesses.
Complainant began using the service mark TAXPAY in connection with the
sale of its services in February, 1989. On January 21, 1992, the United
States Patent and Trademark Office registered the TAXPAY mark, which remains
in full force and effect.Respondent is apparently in the business of registering and selling
domain names. Respondent is not known by the name TAXPAY and is not engaged
in any business or other pursuit commonly known by the name TAXPAY. Respondent
originally registered the domain name Taxpayer.com with BulkRegister.com
on or about April 11, 2000.

Held, Domain name transferred.

It is undisputed that the domain name is identical to Complainant's
trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
Specifically, the domain name has not used by Respondent for a bone fide
offering of goods or services nor has Respondent been commonly known by
such name.Respondent has registered the name in bad faith. Respondent registered
the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.

Policies referred to

Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Judge Banks, Jr., Panelist: -

The above-entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on July
24, 2000 before the undersigned on the Complaint of Paychex, Inc.,hereafter
"Complainant", against Goodsoft, "Respondent". There was representation
on behalf of Complainant. There was no representation on behalf of Respondent.
Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION is made:

PROCEDURAL FINDINGSDomain Name: TAXPAY.COM
Domain Name Registrar: ddong.com
Domain Name Registrant: Unjin No.
Domain Name Holder: Goodsoft
Date Complaint Filed: July 5, 2000.
Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with
Rule 2(a) and Rule 4(c): July 11, 2000.
Due date for a Response: July 31, 2000. Respondent did submit a response
to the Complaint.
Remedy Requested: Transfer of the domain name to Complainant.
After reviewing the Complaint and determining it to be in administrative
compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint
to the Respondent on July 11, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the
administrative
proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c). In compliance with Rule
4(d), The Forum immediately notified ddong.com, the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative
proceeding had commenced.
From the information submitted, it appears that the Respondent originally
registered the domain name Taxpayer.com with BulkRegister.com on or about
April 11, 2000. It further appears that the Respondent changed registrars
from BulkRegister.Com to ddong.com on July 2, 2000. By such registration,
the Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding his domain name
through ICANN's Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1.That Complainant Paychex., Inc. is a Delaware corporation
which provides payroll preparation consulting services to small to medium
size businesses.
2.In February, 1989, Complainant began using the service
mark TAXPAY in connection with the sale of its services.
3.On December 4, 1989, Complainant filed an application
to register the service mark TAXPAY in connection with promoting the sale
of its payroll preparation consulting services.
4.On January 21, 1992, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office registered the TAXPAY mark which remains in full force and effect.
5.Complainant has expended substantial sums of money in
advertising and promoting the TAXPAY mark in conjunction with Paychex services.
6.The TAXPAY mark has appeared prominently in brochures,
newspaper, magazine, and Internet advertising in the United States and
throughout the world.
7.As the result of Complainant's efforts and expenditures,
substantial goodwill has been built for the TAXPAY mark, and for the services
sold under this mark.
8.Respondent is apparently in the business of registering
and selling domain names, thereby preventing trademark owners from using
their own trademarks in conjunction with the primary .com top level domain.
9.Respondent has registered more than 50 domain names,
some of which infringe famous marks such as DOTHUNDAI.COM and HYUNDAILIVE.COM.
10.Respondent is not known by the name TAXPAY and is not engaged
in any business or other pursuit commonly known by the name TAXPAY.
11.The domain name TAXPAY, is identical to the service mark
in which the Complainant has rights and to which the Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interest.
12.Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent
Complaint, the owner of the service mark TAXPAY, from using the mark in
a corresponding domain name.

DISCUSSIONOn October 24, 1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers ("ICANN") adopted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
which sets forth the elements that a complainant must prove to show that
a respondent has registered and used a domain name in bad faith. Specifically,
the complainant must prove each of the following:
i.Respondent's domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights;
ii.Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
iii.Respondent has registered
and is using the domain name in bad faith.

It is the opinion of the undersigned, that Complainant has met the burden
of proof with respect to each of the above elements for the following reasons:
1 - It is undisputed
that the domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
2 - The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain
name. Specifically, the domain name has not used by the Respondent for
a bone fide offering of goods or services nor has the Respondent been commonly
known by such name.
3 - The Respondent has registered the name in bad faith. Section 4(b)
of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy provides that evidence
of bad faith registration and use can consist of the following circumstances:
i.circumstances indicating
that the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily
for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain
name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark
or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant for valuable consideration
in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain
name; or
ii.the respondent has registered
the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided
that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
iii.the respondent has registered
the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of
a competitor; or
iv.by using the domain name,
the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location,
by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of respondent's web
site or location or of a product of service on the respondents web site
or location.

The circumstances of this case permit a finding that the Respondent
registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.

CONCLUSIONThe undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no
know conflict of interest to serve as the Arbitrator in this proceeding.
Having been duly selected, and being impartial, the undersigned makes the
following findings and conclusions:
1.The domain name TAXPAY.COM, registered to the Respondent
is identical to Complainant's service mark.
2.Further, Respondent has no right or legitimate interests
in said name.
3.Respondent registered, acquired and uses the domain
name for the purpose of preventing the Complainant from using its service
mark TAXPAY in a corresponding domain name. As such, the Respondent has
used the name in bad faith as defined by ICANN rules.

DECISIONBased upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule
4(I), it is decided as follows:
THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME "TAXPAY.COM" REGISTERED
BY RESPONDENT GOODSOFT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPLAINANT.

Dated: July 26, 2000,
by Judge Daniel B. Banks, Jr.,
Panelist.

Domain
Name Transferred

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in title

Search in content

Search in content

Search in excerpt

Search in posts

Search in posts

Search in pages

Search in pages

Filter by Categories

DNattorney com blog

DNattorney.com blog

Uncategorised

Uncategorised

Fast Free Consultations

CALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

Are you buying or selling domain names?

If you are interested in buying a domain name, a domain name portfolio, a website, or network of websites, very often a better price can be obtained from the seller by employing the services of an experienced Internet lawyer. We have acted for numerous domain name and website buyers and sellers, all over the world. We have acted in sales of single domain names from as little as $10,000.00 to sales of major domain name portfolios of over $10,000,000.00

Do you need help in a Domain Name Dispute?

We represent both domain name registrants and trademark owners in connection with Domain Name Disputes. Since 1999, we have represented hundreds of clients all over the world in Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaints before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and in Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) arbitrations before the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC) and Resolution Canada, as well as other online arbitration service providers.

Did cybersquatters take your domain name?

The first step in recovering your domain name from a cybersquatter is research. Whenever we are retained to assist you with recovering a domain name that rightfully belongs to you, we begin by thoroughly researching every aspect of the domain name and investigating the background of the cybersquatter. We employ unique methods that enable us to know who the cybersquatter is, what their intentions are, and the best method for recovering a particular domain name in the circumstances. In this manner, we always are able to provide you with the complete picture of the prospects for recovery and the issues that may be faced during the recovery process.

Who operates DNattorney.com?

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian intellectual property lawyer. He is the founder of Domain Name Law Reports and has represented clients before domain name arbitrations in cases against companies like Google, Torstar, and Molson. Muscovitch was the founder and publisher of Domain Name Law Reports - a volunteer organization that helped lawyers research Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and cases. Muscovitch has also released several studies. In 2010 he published a study following the case distribution among the panelists at National Arbitration Forum.